User login
CDC supports Ebola response in DRC
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been working with the Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) on a new Ebola outbreak reported on Aug, 1, 2018, in North Kivu province.
“For the current outbreak, CDC has deployed experienced Ebola experts to DRC and the World Health Organization [WHO] to provide guidance on coordination of outbreak response, laboratory testing, disease contact tracing, infection control, and health communication,” according to a CDC press release.
The CDC’s online response also provides a Traveler’s Health notice of Watch Level 1 for the DRC, which advises standard precautions and avoiding infected individuals, but not an advisory against travel.
The Ebola virus associated with the current outbreak is Zaire ebolavirus, according to genetic testing by scientists in the DRC. This is the same species that caused an outbreak earlier this year in Equateur province in northwestern DRC, although differences between the genes of the viruses suggest the two outbreaks are not linked, according to the CDC media announcement.
As of Aug. 12, 2018, the following statistics were reported by the WHO on the outbreak:
- Confirmed cases: 30
- Probable cases: 27
- Total cases: 57
- Deaths: 41 (14 confirmed, 27 probable)
The outbreak is of particular concern because of the instability of the area, which hampers relief and quarantine efforts. The outbreak is in a part of the country identified by the U.S. State Department as a “restricted travel” zone due to armed conflict and violence targeting civilians, according to the CDC.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been working with the Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) on a new Ebola outbreak reported on Aug, 1, 2018, in North Kivu province.
“For the current outbreak, CDC has deployed experienced Ebola experts to DRC and the World Health Organization [WHO] to provide guidance on coordination of outbreak response, laboratory testing, disease contact tracing, infection control, and health communication,” according to a CDC press release.
The CDC’s online response also provides a Traveler’s Health notice of Watch Level 1 for the DRC, which advises standard precautions and avoiding infected individuals, but not an advisory against travel.
The Ebola virus associated with the current outbreak is Zaire ebolavirus, according to genetic testing by scientists in the DRC. This is the same species that caused an outbreak earlier this year in Equateur province in northwestern DRC, although differences between the genes of the viruses suggest the two outbreaks are not linked, according to the CDC media announcement.
As of Aug. 12, 2018, the following statistics were reported by the WHO on the outbreak:
- Confirmed cases: 30
- Probable cases: 27
- Total cases: 57
- Deaths: 41 (14 confirmed, 27 probable)
The outbreak is of particular concern because of the instability of the area, which hampers relief and quarantine efforts. The outbreak is in a part of the country identified by the U.S. State Department as a “restricted travel” zone due to armed conflict and violence targeting civilians, according to the CDC.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been working with the Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) on a new Ebola outbreak reported on Aug, 1, 2018, in North Kivu province.
“For the current outbreak, CDC has deployed experienced Ebola experts to DRC and the World Health Organization [WHO] to provide guidance on coordination of outbreak response, laboratory testing, disease contact tracing, infection control, and health communication,” according to a CDC press release.
The CDC’s online response also provides a Traveler’s Health notice of Watch Level 1 for the DRC, which advises standard precautions and avoiding infected individuals, but not an advisory against travel.
The Ebola virus associated with the current outbreak is Zaire ebolavirus, according to genetic testing by scientists in the DRC. This is the same species that caused an outbreak earlier this year in Equateur province in northwestern DRC, although differences between the genes of the viruses suggest the two outbreaks are not linked, according to the CDC media announcement.
As of Aug. 12, 2018, the following statistics were reported by the WHO on the outbreak:
- Confirmed cases: 30
- Probable cases: 27
- Total cases: 57
- Deaths: 41 (14 confirmed, 27 probable)
The outbreak is of particular concern because of the instability of the area, which hampers relief and quarantine efforts. The outbreak is in a part of the country identified by the U.S. State Department as a “restricted travel” zone due to armed conflict and violence targeting civilians, according to the CDC.
Next-gen sputum PCR panel boosts CAP diagnostics
NEW ORLEANS – A next-generation lower respiratory tract sputum polymerase chain reaction (PCR) film array panel identified etiologic pathogens in 100% of a group of patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia, Kathryn Hendrickson, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
The investigational new diagnostic assay, the BioFire Pneumonia Panel, is now under Food and Drug Administration review for marketing clearance. (CAP), observed Dr. Hendrickson, an internal medicine resident at Providence Portland (Ore.) Medical Center. The new product is designed to complement the currently available respiratory panels from BioFire.
“Rapid-detection results in less empiric antibiotic use in hospitalized patients. When it’s FDA approved, this investigational sputum PCR panel will simplify the diagnostic bundle while improving antibiotic stewardship,” she observed.
She presented a prospective study of 63 patients with CAP hospitalized at the medical center, all of whom were evaluated by two laboratory methods: the hospital’s standard bundle of diagnostic tests and the new BioFire film array panel. The purpose was to determine if there was a difference between the two tests in the detection rate of viral and/or bacterial pathogens as well as the clinical significance of any such differences; that is, was there an impact on days of treatment and length of hospital stay?
Traditional diagnostic methods detect an etiologic pathogen in at best half of hospitalized CAP patients, and the results take too much time. So Providence Portland Medical Center adopted as its standard diagnostic bundle a nasopharyngeal swab and a BioFire film array PCR that’s currently on the market and can detect nine viruses and three bacteria, along with urine antigens for Legionella sp. and Streptococcus pneumoniae, nucleic acid amplification testing for S. pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, and blood and sputum cultures. In contrast, the investigational panel probes for 17 viruses, 18 bacterial pathogens, and seven antibiotic-resistant genes; it also measures procalcitonin levels in order to distinguish between bacterial colonization and invasion.
The new BioFire Pneumonia Panel detected a mean of 1.4 species of pathogenic bacteria in 79% of patients, while the standard diagnostic bundle detected 0.7 species in 59% of patients. The investigational panel identified a mean of 1.0 species of viral pathogens in 86% of the CAP patients; the standard bundle detected a mean of 0.6 species in 56%.
All told, any CAP pathogen was detected in 100% of patients using the new panel, with a mean of 2.5 different pathogens identified. The standard bundle detected any pathogen in 84% of patients, with half as many different pathogens found, according to Dr. Hendrickson.
A peak procalcitonin level of 0.25 ng/mL or less, which was defined as bacterial colonization, was associated with a mean 7 days of treatment, while a level above that threshold was associated with 11.3 days of treatment. Patients with a peak procalcitonin of 0.25 ng/mL or less had an average hospital length of stay of 5.9 days, versus 7.8 days for those with a higher procalcitonin indicative of bacterial invasion.
The new biofilm assay reports information about the abundance of 15 of the 18 bacterial targets in the sample. However, in contrast to peak procalcitonin, Dr. Hendrickson and her coinvestigators didn’t find this bacterial quantitation feature to be substantially more useful than a coin flip in distinguishing bacterial colonization from invasion.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the head-to-head comparative study, which was supported by BioFire Diagnostics.
NEW ORLEANS – A next-generation lower respiratory tract sputum polymerase chain reaction (PCR) film array panel identified etiologic pathogens in 100% of a group of patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia, Kathryn Hendrickson, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
The investigational new diagnostic assay, the BioFire Pneumonia Panel, is now under Food and Drug Administration review for marketing clearance. (CAP), observed Dr. Hendrickson, an internal medicine resident at Providence Portland (Ore.) Medical Center. The new product is designed to complement the currently available respiratory panels from BioFire.
“Rapid-detection results in less empiric antibiotic use in hospitalized patients. When it’s FDA approved, this investigational sputum PCR panel will simplify the diagnostic bundle while improving antibiotic stewardship,” she observed.
She presented a prospective study of 63 patients with CAP hospitalized at the medical center, all of whom were evaluated by two laboratory methods: the hospital’s standard bundle of diagnostic tests and the new BioFire film array panel. The purpose was to determine if there was a difference between the two tests in the detection rate of viral and/or bacterial pathogens as well as the clinical significance of any such differences; that is, was there an impact on days of treatment and length of hospital stay?
Traditional diagnostic methods detect an etiologic pathogen in at best half of hospitalized CAP patients, and the results take too much time. So Providence Portland Medical Center adopted as its standard diagnostic bundle a nasopharyngeal swab and a BioFire film array PCR that’s currently on the market and can detect nine viruses and three bacteria, along with urine antigens for Legionella sp. and Streptococcus pneumoniae, nucleic acid amplification testing for S. pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, and blood and sputum cultures. In contrast, the investigational panel probes for 17 viruses, 18 bacterial pathogens, and seven antibiotic-resistant genes; it also measures procalcitonin levels in order to distinguish between bacterial colonization and invasion.
The new BioFire Pneumonia Panel detected a mean of 1.4 species of pathogenic bacteria in 79% of patients, while the standard diagnostic bundle detected 0.7 species in 59% of patients. The investigational panel identified a mean of 1.0 species of viral pathogens in 86% of the CAP patients; the standard bundle detected a mean of 0.6 species in 56%.
All told, any CAP pathogen was detected in 100% of patients using the new panel, with a mean of 2.5 different pathogens identified. The standard bundle detected any pathogen in 84% of patients, with half as many different pathogens found, according to Dr. Hendrickson.
A peak procalcitonin level of 0.25 ng/mL or less, which was defined as bacterial colonization, was associated with a mean 7 days of treatment, while a level above that threshold was associated with 11.3 days of treatment. Patients with a peak procalcitonin of 0.25 ng/mL or less had an average hospital length of stay of 5.9 days, versus 7.8 days for those with a higher procalcitonin indicative of bacterial invasion.
The new biofilm assay reports information about the abundance of 15 of the 18 bacterial targets in the sample. However, in contrast to peak procalcitonin, Dr. Hendrickson and her coinvestigators didn’t find this bacterial quantitation feature to be substantially more useful than a coin flip in distinguishing bacterial colonization from invasion.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the head-to-head comparative study, which was supported by BioFire Diagnostics.
NEW ORLEANS – A next-generation lower respiratory tract sputum polymerase chain reaction (PCR) film array panel identified etiologic pathogens in 100% of a group of patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia, Kathryn Hendrickson, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
The investigational new diagnostic assay, the BioFire Pneumonia Panel, is now under Food and Drug Administration review for marketing clearance. (CAP), observed Dr. Hendrickson, an internal medicine resident at Providence Portland (Ore.) Medical Center. The new product is designed to complement the currently available respiratory panels from BioFire.
“Rapid-detection results in less empiric antibiotic use in hospitalized patients. When it’s FDA approved, this investigational sputum PCR panel will simplify the diagnostic bundle while improving antibiotic stewardship,” she observed.
She presented a prospective study of 63 patients with CAP hospitalized at the medical center, all of whom were evaluated by two laboratory methods: the hospital’s standard bundle of diagnostic tests and the new BioFire film array panel. The purpose was to determine if there was a difference between the two tests in the detection rate of viral and/or bacterial pathogens as well as the clinical significance of any such differences; that is, was there an impact on days of treatment and length of hospital stay?
Traditional diagnostic methods detect an etiologic pathogen in at best half of hospitalized CAP patients, and the results take too much time. So Providence Portland Medical Center adopted as its standard diagnostic bundle a nasopharyngeal swab and a BioFire film array PCR that’s currently on the market and can detect nine viruses and three bacteria, along with urine antigens for Legionella sp. and Streptococcus pneumoniae, nucleic acid amplification testing for S. pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, and blood and sputum cultures. In contrast, the investigational panel probes for 17 viruses, 18 bacterial pathogens, and seven antibiotic-resistant genes; it also measures procalcitonin levels in order to distinguish between bacterial colonization and invasion.
The new BioFire Pneumonia Panel detected a mean of 1.4 species of pathogenic bacteria in 79% of patients, while the standard diagnostic bundle detected 0.7 species in 59% of patients. The investigational panel identified a mean of 1.0 species of viral pathogens in 86% of the CAP patients; the standard bundle detected a mean of 0.6 species in 56%.
All told, any CAP pathogen was detected in 100% of patients using the new panel, with a mean of 2.5 different pathogens identified. The standard bundle detected any pathogen in 84% of patients, with half as many different pathogens found, according to Dr. Hendrickson.
A peak procalcitonin level of 0.25 ng/mL or less, which was defined as bacterial colonization, was associated with a mean 7 days of treatment, while a level above that threshold was associated with 11.3 days of treatment. Patients with a peak procalcitonin of 0.25 ng/mL or less had an average hospital length of stay of 5.9 days, versus 7.8 days for those with a higher procalcitonin indicative of bacterial invasion.
The new biofilm assay reports information about the abundance of 15 of the 18 bacterial targets in the sample. However, in contrast to peak procalcitonin, Dr. Hendrickson and her coinvestigators didn’t find this bacterial quantitation feature to be substantially more useful than a coin flip in distinguishing bacterial colonization from invasion.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the head-to-head comparative study, which was supported by BioFire Diagnostics.
REPORTING FROM ACP INTERNAL MEDICINE
Key clinical point: A new CAP diagnostic panel represents a significant advance in clinical care.
Major finding: The investigational BioFire Pneumonia Panel identified specific pathogens in 100% of patients hospitalized for CAP, compared with 84% using the hospital’s standard test bundle.
Study details: This was a prospective head-to-head study comparing two approaches to identification of specific pathogens in 63 patients hospitalized for CAP.
Disclosures: The study was supported by BioFire Diagnostics. The presenter reported having no financial conflicts.
FDA issues Ebola preparedness statement
In response to the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Food and Drug Administration has announced steps the agency is taking to make diagnostic and medical products available as part of critical response efforts.
In addition to providing scientific and regulatory advice to medical product developers, the FDA is using its authorities to ensure Merck’s investigational Ebola Zaire vaccine is made available appropriately to vaccinate high-risk populations in the DRC. Additionally, the FDA also is committed to facilitating the development of investigational drugs for the treatment of Ebola virus and supporting access to these products under appropriate regulatory pathways, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a statement.
Clinical trials that are adaptive to the circumstances of an outbreak are essential, he added. “During the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak, the FDA recognized that some of the medical products that initially appeared to show great promise sometimes, when subjected to objective testing, were not effective or may have done more harm than good.”
Further, as there are no approved treatments or vaccines for Ebola, the agency will be monitoring for false product claims to protect consumers from fraudulent products claiming to prevent, treat, or cure the disease.
“The FDA knows that it takes a sustained, robust, and globally coordinated effort to best protect our nation from various infectious disease threats,” Dr. Gottlieb wrote. “We’re committed to supporting the people of the DRC and preventing a worsening circumstance during the current outbreak. And we remain highly engaged in the international response efforts.”
In response to the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Food and Drug Administration has announced steps the agency is taking to make diagnostic and medical products available as part of critical response efforts.
In addition to providing scientific and regulatory advice to medical product developers, the FDA is using its authorities to ensure Merck’s investigational Ebola Zaire vaccine is made available appropriately to vaccinate high-risk populations in the DRC. Additionally, the FDA also is committed to facilitating the development of investigational drugs for the treatment of Ebola virus and supporting access to these products under appropriate regulatory pathways, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a statement.
Clinical trials that are adaptive to the circumstances of an outbreak are essential, he added. “During the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak, the FDA recognized that some of the medical products that initially appeared to show great promise sometimes, when subjected to objective testing, were not effective or may have done more harm than good.”
Further, as there are no approved treatments or vaccines for Ebola, the agency will be monitoring for false product claims to protect consumers from fraudulent products claiming to prevent, treat, or cure the disease.
“The FDA knows that it takes a sustained, robust, and globally coordinated effort to best protect our nation from various infectious disease threats,” Dr. Gottlieb wrote. “We’re committed to supporting the people of the DRC and preventing a worsening circumstance during the current outbreak. And we remain highly engaged in the international response efforts.”
In response to the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Food and Drug Administration has announced steps the agency is taking to make diagnostic and medical products available as part of critical response efforts.
In addition to providing scientific and regulatory advice to medical product developers, the FDA is using its authorities to ensure Merck’s investigational Ebola Zaire vaccine is made available appropriately to vaccinate high-risk populations in the DRC. Additionally, the FDA also is committed to facilitating the development of investigational drugs for the treatment of Ebola virus and supporting access to these products under appropriate regulatory pathways, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a statement.
Clinical trials that are adaptive to the circumstances of an outbreak are essential, he added. “During the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak, the FDA recognized that some of the medical products that initially appeared to show great promise sometimes, when subjected to objective testing, were not effective or may have done more harm than good.”
Further, as there are no approved treatments or vaccines for Ebola, the agency will be monitoring for false product claims to protect consumers from fraudulent products claiming to prevent, treat, or cure the disease.
“The FDA knows that it takes a sustained, robust, and globally coordinated effort to best protect our nation from various infectious disease threats,” Dr. Gottlieb wrote. “We’re committed to supporting the people of the DRC and preventing a worsening circumstance during the current outbreak. And we remain highly engaged in the international response efforts.”
MDedge Daily News: Keeping patients summer safe
Memorial Day is the traditional kickoff to summer, so patients will need information on some important topics. To that end, the Food and Drug Administration reminds that there is no such thing as a supplement that prevents sun damage. The CDC warns that nasty things happen when people (kids) drink the pool water. And the federal government advises on what should be included in an approved insect repellent.
Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details.
Memorial Day is the traditional kickoff to summer, so patients will need information on some important topics. To that end, the Food and Drug Administration reminds that there is no such thing as a supplement that prevents sun damage. The CDC warns that nasty things happen when people (kids) drink the pool water. And the federal government advises on what should be included in an approved insect repellent.
Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details.
Memorial Day is the traditional kickoff to summer, so patients will need information on some important topics. To that end, the Food and Drug Administration reminds that there is no such thing as a supplement that prevents sun damage. The CDC warns that nasty things happen when people (kids) drink the pool water. And the federal government advises on what should be included in an approved insect repellent.
Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details.
Simvastatin, atorvastatin cut mortality risk for sepsis patients
a large health care database review has determined.
Among almost 53,000 sepsis patients, those who had been taking simvastatin were 28% less likely to die within 30 days of a sepsis admission than were patients not taking a statin. Atorvastatin conferred a similar significant survival benefit, reducing the risk of death by 22%, Chien-Chang Lee, MD and his colleagues wrote in the April issue of the journal CHEST®.
The drugs also exert a direct antimicrobial effect, he asserted.
“Of note, simvastatin was shown by several reports to have the most potent antibacterial activity,” targeting both methicillin-resistant and -sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, as well as gram negative and positive bacteria.
Dr. Lee and his colleagues extracted mortality and statin prescription data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database from 2000-2011. They looked at 30- and 90-day mortality in 52,737 patients who developed sepsis; the statins of interest were atorvastatin, simvastatin, and rosuvastatin. Patients had to have been taking the medication for at least 30 days before sepsis onset to be included, and patients taking more than one statin were excluded from the analysis.
Patients were a mean of 69 years old. About half had a lower respiratory infection. The remainder had infections within the abdomen, the biliary or urinary tract, skin, or orthopedic infections. There were no significant differences in comorbidities or in other medications taken among the three statin groups or the nonusers.
Of the entire cohort, 17% died by 30 days and nearly 23% by 90 days. Compared with those who had never received a statin, the statin users were 12% less likely to die by 30 days (hazard ratio, 0.88). Mortality at 90 days was also decreased, when compared with nonusers (HR, 0.93).
Simvastatin demonstrated the greatest benefit, with a 28% decreased risk of 30-day mortality (HR, 0.72). Atorvastatin followed, with a 22% risk reduction (HR, 0.78). Rosuvastatin exerted a nonsignificant 13% benefit.
The authors then examined 90-day mortality risks for the patients with a propensity matching score using a subgroup comprising 536 simvastatin users, 536 atorvastatin users, and 536 rosuvastatin users. Simvastatin was associated with a 23% reduction in 30-day mortality risk (HR, 0.77) and atorvastatin with a 21% reduction (HR, 0.79), when compared with rosuvastatin.
Statins’ antimicrobial properties are probably partially caused by their inactivation of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase pathway, Dr. Lee and his colleagues noted. In addition to being vital for cholesterol synthesis, this pathway “also contributes to the production of isoprenoids and lipid compounds that are essential for cell signaling and structure in the pathogen. Secondly, the chemical property of different types of statins may affect their targeting to bacteria. The lipophilic properties of simvastatin or atorvastatin may allow better binding to bacteria cell walls than the hydrophilic properties of rosuvastatin.”
The study was funded by the Taiwan National Science Foundation and Taiwan National Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Lee had no financial conflicts.
The statin-sepsis mortality link will probably never be definitively proven, but the study by Lee and colleagues gives us the best data so far on this intriguing connection, Steven Q. Simpson, MD and Joel D. Mermis, MD wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“It is unlikely that prospective randomized trials of statins for prevention of sepsis mortality will ever be undertaken, owing to the sheer number of patients that would require randomization in order to have adequate numbers who actually develop sepsis,” the colleagues wrote. “We believe that the next best thing to randomization and a prospective trial is exactly what the authors have done – identify a cohort, track them through time, even if nonconcurrently, and match cases to controls by propensity matching on important clinical characteristics.”
Nevertheless, the two said, “This brings us to one aspect of the study that leaves open a window for some doubt.”
Lee et al. extracted their data from a large national insurance claims database. These systems “are commonly believed to overestimate sepsis incidence,” Dr. Simpson and Dr. Mermis wrote. A 2009 U.S. study bore this out, they said. “That study showed that in the U.S in 2014, there were approximately 1.7 million cases of sepsis in a population of 330 million, for an annual incidence rate of five sepsis cases per 1,000 patient-years.”
However, a “quick calculation” of the Taiwan data suggests that the annual sepsis caseload is about 5,200 per year in a population of 23 million at risk – an annual incidence of only 0.2 cases per 1,000 patient-years.
“This represents an order of magnitude difference in sepsis incidence between the U.S. and Taiwan, providing some issues to ponder. Does Taiwan indeed have a lower incidence of sepsis by that much? If so, is the lower incidence related to genetics, environment, health care access, or other factors?
“Although Lee et al. have provided us with data of the highest quality that we can likely hope for, the book may not be quite closed, yet.”
Dr. Mermis and Dr. Simpson are pulmonologists at the University of Kansas, Kansas City. They made their comments in an editorial published in the April issue of CHEST® (Mermis JD and Simpson SQ. CHEST. 2018 April. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.12.004.)
The statin-sepsis mortality link will probably never be definitively proven, but the study by Lee and colleagues gives us the best data so far on this intriguing connection, Steven Q. Simpson, MD and Joel D. Mermis, MD wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“It is unlikely that prospective randomized trials of statins for prevention of sepsis mortality will ever be undertaken, owing to the sheer number of patients that would require randomization in order to have adequate numbers who actually develop sepsis,” the colleagues wrote. “We believe that the next best thing to randomization and a prospective trial is exactly what the authors have done – identify a cohort, track them through time, even if nonconcurrently, and match cases to controls by propensity matching on important clinical characteristics.”
Nevertheless, the two said, “This brings us to one aspect of the study that leaves open a window for some doubt.”
Lee et al. extracted their data from a large national insurance claims database. These systems “are commonly believed to overestimate sepsis incidence,” Dr. Simpson and Dr. Mermis wrote. A 2009 U.S. study bore this out, they said. “That study showed that in the U.S in 2014, there were approximately 1.7 million cases of sepsis in a population of 330 million, for an annual incidence rate of five sepsis cases per 1,000 patient-years.”
However, a “quick calculation” of the Taiwan data suggests that the annual sepsis caseload is about 5,200 per year in a population of 23 million at risk – an annual incidence of only 0.2 cases per 1,000 patient-years.
“This represents an order of magnitude difference in sepsis incidence between the U.S. and Taiwan, providing some issues to ponder. Does Taiwan indeed have a lower incidence of sepsis by that much? If so, is the lower incidence related to genetics, environment, health care access, or other factors?
“Although Lee et al. have provided us with data of the highest quality that we can likely hope for, the book may not be quite closed, yet.”
Dr. Mermis and Dr. Simpson are pulmonologists at the University of Kansas, Kansas City. They made their comments in an editorial published in the April issue of CHEST® (Mermis JD and Simpson SQ. CHEST. 2018 April. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.12.004.)
The statin-sepsis mortality link will probably never be definitively proven, but the study by Lee and colleagues gives us the best data so far on this intriguing connection, Steven Q. Simpson, MD and Joel D. Mermis, MD wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“It is unlikely that prospective randomized trials of statins for prevention of sepsis mortality will ever be undertaken, owing to the sheer number of patients that would require randomization in order to have adequate numbers who actually develop sepsis,” the colleagues wrote. “We believe that the next best thing to randomization and a prospective trial is exactly what the authors have done – identify a cohort, track them through time, even if nonconcurrently, and match cases to controls by propensity matching on important clinical characteristics.”
Nevertheless, the two said, “This brings us to one aspect of the study that leaves open a window for some doubt.”
Lee et al. extracted their data from a large national insurance claims database. These systems “are commonly believed to overestimate sepsis incidence,” Dr. Simpson and Dr. Mermis wrote. A 2009 U.S. study bore this out, they said. “That study showed that in the U.S in 2014, there were approximately 1.7 million cases of sepsis in a population of 330 million, for an annual incidence rate of five sepsis cases per 1,000 patient-years.”
However, a “quick calculation” of the Taiwan data suggests that the annual sepsis caseload is about 5,200 per year in a population of 23 million at risk – an annual incidence of only 0.2 cases per 1,000 patient-years.
“This represents an order of magnitude difference in sepsis incidence between the U.S. and Taiwan, providing some issues to ponder. Does Taiwan indeed have a lower incidence of sepsis by that much? If so, is the lower incidence related to genetics, environment, health care access, or other factors?
“Although Lee et al. have provided us with data of the highest quality that we can likely hope for, the book may not be quite closed, yet.”
Dr. Mermis and Dr. Simpson are pulmonologists at the University of Kansas, Kansas City. They made their comments in an editorial published in the April issue of CHEST® (Mermis JD and Simpson SQ. CHEST. 2018 April. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.12.004.)
a large health care database review has determined.
Among almost 53,000 sepsis patients, those who had been taking simvastatin were 28% less likely to die within 30 days of a sepsis admission than were patients not taking a statin. Atorvastatin conferred a similar significant survival benefit, reducing the risk of death by 22%, Chien-Chang Lee, MD and his colleagues wrote in the April issue of the journal CHEST®.
The drugs also exert a direct antimicrobial effect, he asserted.
“Of note, simvastatin was shown by several reports to have the most potent antibacterial activity,” targeting both methicillin-resistant and -sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, as well as gram negative and positive bacteria.
Dr. Lee and his colleagues extracted mortality and statin prescription data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database from 2000-2011. They looked at 30- and 90-day mortality in 52,737 patients who developed sepsis; the statins of interest were atorvastatin, simvastatin, and rosuvastatin. Patients had to have been taking the medication for at least 30 days before sepsis onset to be included, and patients taking more than one statin were excluded from the analysis.
Patients were a mean of 69 years old. About half had a lower respiratory infection. The remainder had infections within the abdomen, the biliary or urinary tract, skin, or orthopedic infections. There were no significant differences in comorbidities or in other medications taken among the three statin groups or the nonusers.
Of the entire cohort, 17% died by 30 days and nearly 23% by 90 days. Compared with those who had never received a statin, the statin users were 12% less likely to die by 30 days (hazard ratio, 0.88). Mortality at 90 days was also decreased, when compared with nonusers (HR, 0.93).
Simvastatin demonstrated the greatest benefit, with a 28% decreased risk of 30-day mortality (HR, 0.72). Atorvastatin followed, with a 22% risk reduction (HR, 0.78). Rosuvastatin exerted a nonsignificant 13% benefit.
The authors then examined 90-day mortality risks for the patients with a propensity matching score using a subgroup comprising 536 simvastatin users, 536 atorvastatin users, and 536 rosuvastatin users. Simvastatin was associated with a 23% reduction in 30-day mortality risk (HR, 0.77) and atorvastatin with a 21% reduction (HR, 0.79), when compared with rosuvastatin.
Statins’ antimicrobial properties are probably partially caused by their inactivation of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase pathway, Dr. Lee and his colleagues noted. In addition to being vital for cholesterol synthesis, this pathway “also contributes to the production of isoprenoids and lipid compounds that are essential for cell signaling and structure in the pathogen. Secondly, the chemical property of different types of statins may affect their targeting to bacteria. The lipophilic properties of simvastatin or atorvastatin may allow better binding to bacteria cell walls than the hydrophilic properties of rosuvastatin.”
The study was funded by the Taiwan National Science Foundation and Taiwan National Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Lee had no financial conflicts.
a large health care database review has determined.
Among almost 53,000 sepsis patients, those who had been taking simvastatin were 28% less likely to die within 30 days of a sepsis admission than were patients not taking a statin. Atorvastatin conferred a similar significant survival benefit, reducing the risk of death by 22%, Chien-Chang Lee, MD and his colleagues wrote in the April issue of the journal CHEST®.
The drugs also exert a direct antimicrobial effect, he asserted.
“Of note, simvastatin was shown by several reports to have the most potent antibacterial activity,” targeting both methicillin-resistant and -sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, as well as gram negative and positive bacteria.
Dr. Lee and his colleagues extracted mortality and statin prescription data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database from 2000-2011. They looked at 30- and 90-day mortality in 52,737 patients who developed sepsis; the statins of interest were atorvastatin, simvastatin, and rosuvastatin. Patients had to have been taking the medication for at least 30 days before sepsis onset to be included, and patients taking more than one statin were excluded from the analysis.
Patients were a mean of 69 years old. About half had a lower respiratory infection. The remainder had infections within the abdomen, the biliary or urinary tract, skin, or orthopedic infections. There were no significant differences in comorbidities or in other medications taken among the three statin groups or the nonusers.
Of the entire cohort, 17% died by 30 days and nearly 23% by 90 days. Compared with those who had never received a statin, the statin users were 12% less likely to die by 30 days (hazard ratio, 0.88). Mortality at 90 days was also decreased, when compared with nonusers (HR, 0.93).
Simvastatin demonstrated the greatest benefit, with a 28% decreased risk of 30-day mortality (HR, 0.72). Atorvastatin followed, with a 22% risk reduction (HR, 0.78). Rosuvastatin exerted a nonsignificant 13% benefit.
The authors then examined 90-day mortality risks for the patients with a propensity matching score using a subgroup comprising 536 simvastatin users, 536 atorvastatin users, and 536 rosuvastatin users. Simvastatin was associated with a 23% reduction in 30-day mortality risk (HR, 0.77) and atorvastatin with a 21% reduction (HR, 0.79), when compared with rosuvastatin.
Statins’ antimicrobial properties are probably partially caused by their inactivation of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase pathway, Dr. Lee and his colleagues noted. In addition to being vital for cholesterol synthesis, this pathway “also contributes to the production of isoprenoids and lipid compounds that are essential for cell signaling and structure in the pathogen. Secondly, the chemical property of different types of statins may affect their targeting to bacteria. The lipophilic properties of simvastatin or atorvastatin may allow better binding to bacteria cell walls than the hydrophilic properties of rosuvastatin.”
The study was funded by the Taiwan National Science Foundation and Taiwan National Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Lee had no financial conflicts.
FROM CHEST
Key clinical point: Simvastatin and atorvastatin were associated with decreased mortality risk among sepsis patients.
Major finding: Compared with those not taking the drugs, those taking simvastatin were 28% less likely to die by 30 days, and those taking atorvastatin were 22% less likely.
Study details: The database study comprised almost 54,000 sepsis cases over 11 years.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Taiwan National Science Foundation and Taiwan National Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Lee had no financial conflicts.
Source: Lee C-C et al. CHEST. 2018 April;153(4):769-70.
CDC: Beware Brazil yellow fever outbreak
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that travelers who haven’t been vaccinated against yellow fever should avoid travel to Brazil, according to a media teleconference by CDC officials.
“The most important new recommendation ... is that travelers should not go to these yellow fever hot spots in Brazil, unless they are vaccinated,” stated Martin Cetron, MD, director of the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine at the CDC. “Health officials in Brazil recently confirmed more than 920 cases of yellow fever, including more than 300 deaths, during this outbreak” he added.
Since the beginning of 2018, 10 travel-related cases of yellow fever have been reported among international travelers returning from Brazil. Four of these travelers died. All 10 travelers had not received the yellow fever vaccine. Of these 10 travelers, 8 acquired the disease on Ilha Grande, an island off the coast of Rio De Janeiro that is popular among tourists.
The CDC is urging travelers to get vaccinated because of the potentially fatal effects of yellow fever. Vaccinations are recommended for any eligible person 9 months of age or older traveling to Brazil, specifically Espírito Santo, São Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro states, and certain cities in Bahia state, as well as Ilha Grande in particular.
Individuals heading to Brazil should receive the vaccination at least 10 days before travel. If a traveler is unvaccinated and cannot get the vaccination in the appropriate amount of time, areas where vaccination is recommended should be avoided.
The Food and Drug Administration–approved yellow fever vaccine, YF-VAX, is not currently available because of manufacturing issues. Stamaril, another yellow fever vaccine, is available at a limited number of yellow fever vaccination clinics in the United States.
In light of these supply issues, the CDC has provided resources to locate yellow fever vaccination clinics.
Dr. Cetron reemphasized that unvaccinated individuals planning to vacation in Brazil may want to reconsider their travel plans.
“People who have never been vaccinated against yellow fever should not travel to the areas in Brazil affected by the outbreak. Particularly the hot spot of Ilha Grande.”
Information for clinicians and travelers is available on the travel notice portion of the CDC site. The travel notice for Brazil includes a map of the yellow fever–affected areas in Brazil, as well as other informational resources.
The related CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is available online.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that travelers who haven’t been vaccinated against yellow fever should avoid travel to Brazil, according to a media teleconference by CDC officials.
“The most important new recommendation ... is that travelers should not go to these yellow fever hot spots in Brazil, unless they are vaccinated,” stated Martin Cetron, MD, director of the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine at the CDC. “Health officials in Brazil recently confirmed more than 920 cases of yellow fever, including more than 300 deaths, during this outbreak” he added.
Since the beginning of 2018, 10 travel-related cases of yellow fever have been reported among international travelers returning from Brazil. Four of these travelers died. All 10 travelers had not received the yellow fever vaccine. Of these 10 travelers, 8 acquired the disease on Ilha Grande, an island off the coast of Rio De Janeiro that is popular among tourists.
The CDC is urging travelers to get vaccinated because of the potentially fatal effects of yellow fever. Vaccinations are recommended for any eligible person 9 months of age or older traveling to Brazil, specifically Espírito Santo, São Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro states, and certain cities in Bahia state, as well as Ilha Grande in particular.
Individuals heading to Brazil should receive the vaccination at least 10 days before travel. If a traveler is unvaccinated and cannot get the vaccination in the appropriate amount of time, areas where vaccination is recommended should be avoided.
The Food and Drug Administration–approved yellow fever vaccine, YF-VAX, is not currently available because of manufacturing issues. Stamaril, another yellow fever vaccine, is available at a limited number of yellow fever vaccination clinics in the United States.
In light of these supply issues, the CDC has provided resources to locate yellow fever vaccination clinics.
Dr. Cetron reemphasized that unvaccinated individuals planning to vacation in Brazil may want to reconsider their travel plans.
“People who have never been vaccinated against yellow fever should not travel to the areas in Brazil affected by the outbreak. Particularly the hot spot of Ilha Grande.”
Information for clinicians and travelers is available on the travel notice portion of the CDC site. The travel notice for Brazil includes a map of the yellow fever–affected areas in Brazil, as well as other informational resources.
The related CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is available online.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that travelers who haven’t been vaccinated against yellow fever should avoid travel to Brazil, according to a media teleconference by CDC officials.
“The most important new recommendation ... is that travelers should not go to these yellow fever hot spots in Brazil, unless they are vaccinated,” stated Martin Cetron, MD, director of the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine at the CDC. “Health officials in Brazil recently confirmed more than 920 cases of yellow fever, including more than 300 deaths, during this outbreak” he added.
Since the beginning of 2018, 10 travel-related cases of yellow fever have been reported among international travelers returning from Brazil. Four of these travelers died. All 10 travelers had not received the yellow fever vaccine. Of these 10 travelers, 8 acquired the disease on Ilha Grande, an island off the coast of Rio De Janeiro that is popular among tourists.
The CDC is urging travelers to get vaccinated because of the potentially fatal effects of yellow fever. Vaccinations are recommended for any eligible person 9 months of age or older traveling to Brazil, specifically Espírito Santo, São Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro states, and certain cities in Bahia state, as well as Ilha Grande in particular.
Individuals heading to Brazil should receive the vaccination at least 10 days before travel. If a traveler is unvaccinated and cannot get the vaccination in the appropriate amount of time, areas where vaccination is recommended should be avoided.
The Food and Drug Administration–approved yellow fever vaccine, YF-VAX, is not currently available because of manufacturing issues. Stamaril, another yellow fever vaccine, is available at a limited number of yellow fever vaccination clinics in the United States.
In light of these supply issues, the CDC has provided resources to locate yellow fever vaccination clinics.
Dr. Cetron reemphasized that unvaccinated individuals planning to vacation in Brazil may want to reconsider their travel plans.
“People who have never been vaccinated against yellow fever should not travel to the areas in Brazil affected by the outbreak. Particularly the hot spot of Ilha Grande.”
Information for clinicians and travelers is available on the travel notice portion of the CDC site. The travel notice for Brazil includes a map of the yellow fever–affected areas in Brazil, as well as other informational resources.
The related CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is available online.
Dr. Paul E. Marik proclaims end to corticosteroid monotherapy for sepsis
SAN ANTONIO – While critical care specialists await more data on a so-called sepsis cocktail with varying degrees of hope and skepticism, Paul E. Marik, MD, FCCP, has proclaimed the dawning of a new era.
Dr. Marik became a celebrity in the critical care medicine community after he and his colleagues reported the results of his retrospective study evaluating the combination of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine for treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock (Chest. 2017 June. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.11.036).
Since this study, several physicians have already been putting Dr. Marik’s method to practice, the investigator and audience members noted during a session at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
in his presentation at the meeting.
These comments echoed Dr. Marik’s May 2017 editorial in Critical Care Medicine, in which he suggested that critically ill and injured patients may benefit from combination therapy with hydrocortisone and vitamin C (Crit Care Med 2017 May;45[5]910-1).
That editorial was quickly followed by the report on Dr. Marik and colleagues’ before-after study, in which hospital mortality was 8.5%, versus 0.4% in the treatment and control groups, respectively (P less than .001). This finding led the investigators to suggest that intravenous vitamin C administered along with corticosteroids and thiamine is “effective” in reducing mortality, in their paper published in CHEST®.
During Dr. Marik’s presentation at the meeting, he noted that he had been “misquoted” with regard to the finality of his study’s results. The final line of the CHEST® paper reads, “Additional studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings,” he emphasized.
Nevertheless, Dr. Marik alluded to a “big paradigm shift” in the treatment of sepsis.
“Our experience has been echoed by now hundreds, if not thousands, of clinicians across the world,” said Dr. Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.
He recounted an anecdotal case submitted by “Josh from Ohio” describing an elderly man who was “started on cocktail and within a day his pressor requirements melted away and he was extubated.” Quoting “Josh from Ohio,” Dr. Mark continued, “Tomorrow he will probably leave the ICU with no residual organ dysfunction, no volume overload, (and) no ICU complications.”
Eddy Gutierrez, MD, of Jacksonville, Fla., noted in a question-and-answer period that he has had “positive results” with a similar approach.
“When we first learned about the vitamin C and the ‘Marik protocol,’ so to speak, I was in fellowship and I got laughed at,” Dr. Gutierrez said. “Nobody would let me try it.”
Others are taking a wait-and-see approach.
Greg S. Martin, MD, secretary of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, said in an interview that there are “at least two schools of thought” among critical care specialists regarding the use of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine for treatment of sepsis and septic shock.
“One school of thought is that this is incredibly important if this is even fractionally as effective as what [Dr. Marik] showed, because we have not found an effective therapy for sepsis,” said Dr. Martin, associate professor of medicine at Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta.
“The contrarian approach is to say, ‘yes, but this seems remarkably unlikely to be as effective as what he has shown,’ ” Dr. Martin added. “Particularly in sepsis, people are very skeptical of whether a drug or a drug combination is going to be as effective when you really get down to a high-quality randomized controlled trial that would be the definitive level of evidence.”
The wait may not be long for at least some data. Multiple clinical trials are recruiting or planned, according to Dr. Marik. These included a 140-patient U.S. randomized, double-blind trial of vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine vs. placebo that started in February 2018 and is expected to be completed by February 2019, according to the study’s ClinicalTrials.gov listing.
“The good news is some people think this is of value,” Dr. Marik said.
As part of his presentation, Dr. Marik reported a disclosure related to Baxter (advisory board).
SAN ANTONIO – While critical care specialists await more data on a so-called sepsis cocktail with varying degrees of hope and skepticism, Paul E. Marik, MD, FCCP, has proclaimed the dawning of a new era.
Dr. Marik became a celebrity in the critical care medicine community after he and his colleagues reported the results of his retrospective study evaluating the combination of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine for treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock (Chest. 2017 June. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.11.036).
Since this study, several physicians have already been putting Dr. Marik’s method to practice, the investigator and audience members noted during a session at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
in his presentation at the meeting.
These comments echoed Dr. Marik’s May 2017 editorial in Critical Care Medicine, in which he suggested that critically ill and injured patients may benefit from combination therapy with hydrocortisone and vitamin C (Crit Care Med 2017 May;45[5]910-1).
That editorial was quickly followed by the report on Dr. Marik and colleagues’ before-after study, in which hospital mortality was 8.5%, versus 0.4% in the treatment and control groups, respectively (P less than .001). This finding led the investigators to suggest that intravenous vitamin C administered along with corticosteroids and thiamine is “effective” in reducing mortality, in their paper published in CHEST®.
During Dr. Marik’s presentation at the meeting, he noted that he had been “misquoted” with regard to the finality of his study’s results. The final line of the CHEST® paper reads, “Additional studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings,” he emphasized.
Nevertheless, Dr. Marik alluded to a “big paradigm shift” in the treatment of sepsis.
“Our experience has been echoed by now hundreds, if not thousands, of clinicians across the world,” said Dr. Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.
He recounted an anecdotal case submitted by “Josh from Ohio” describing an elderly man who was “started on cocktail and within a day his pressor requirements melted away and he was extubated.” Quoting “Josh from Ohio,” Dr. Mark continued, “Tomorrow he will probably leave the ICU with no residual organ dysfunction, no volume overload, (and) no ICU complications.”
Eddy Gutierrez, MD, of Jacksonville, Fla., noted in a question-and-answer period that he has had “positive results” with a similar approach.
“When we first learned about the vitamin C and the ‘Marik protocol,’ so to speak, I was in fellowship and I got laughed at,” Dr. Gutierrez said. “Nobody would let me try it.”
Others are taking a wait-and-see approach.
Greg S. Martin, MD, secretary of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, said in an interview that there are “at least two schools of thought” among critical care specialists regarding the use of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine for treatment of sepsis and septic shock.
“One school of thought is that this is incredibly important if this is even fractionally as effective as what [Dr. Marik] showed, because we have not found an effective therapy for sepsis,” said Dr. Martin, associate professor of medicine at Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta.
“The contrarian approach is to say, ‘yes, but this seems remarkably unlikely to be as effective as what he has shown,’ ” Dr. Martin added. “Particularly in sepsis, people are very skeptical of whether a drug or a drug combination is going to be as effective when you really get down to a high-quality randomized controlled trial that would be the definitive level of evidence.”
The wait may not be long for at least some data. Multiple clinical trials are recruiting or planned, according to Dr. Marik. These included a 140-patient U.S. randomized, double-blind trial of vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine vs. placebo that started in February 2018 and is expected to be completed by February 2019, according to the study’s ClinicalTrials.gov listing.
“The good news is some people think this is of value,” Dr. Marik said.
As part of his presentation, Dr. Marik reported a disclosure related to Baxter (advisory board).
SAN ANTONIO – While critical care specialists await more data on a so-called sepsis cocktail with varying degrees of hope and skepticism, Paul E. Marik, MD, FCCP, has proclaimed the dawning of a new era.
Dr. Marik became a celebrity in the critical care medicine community after he and his colleagues reported the results of his retrospective study evaluating the combination of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine for treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock (Chest. 2017 June. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.11.036).
Since this study, several physicians have already been putting Dr. Marik’s method to practice, the investigator and audience members noted during a session at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
in his presentation at the meeting.
These comments echoed Dr. Marik’s May 2017 editorial in Critical Care Medicine, in which he suggested that critically ill and injured patients may benefit from combination therapy with hydrocortisone and vitamin C (Crit Care Med 2017 May;45[5]910-1).
That editorial was quickly followed by the report on Dr. Marik and colleagues’ before-after study, in which hospital mortality was 8.5%, versus 0.4% in the treatment and control groups, respectively (P less than .001). This finding led the investigators to suggest that intravenous vitamin C administered along with corticosteroids and thiamine is “effective” in reducing mortality, in their paper published in CHEST®.
During Dr. Marik’s presentation at the meeting, he noted that he had been “misquoted” with regard to the finality of his study’s results. The final line of the CHEST® paper reads, “Additional studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings,” he emphasized.
Nevertheless, Dr. Marik alluded to a “big paradigm shift” in the treatment of sepsis.
“Our experience has been echoed by now hundreds, if not thousands, of clinicians across the world,” said Dr. Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.
He recounted an anecdotal case submitted by “Josh from Ohio” describing an elderly man who was “started on cocktail and within a day his pressor requirements melted away and he was extubated.” Quoting “Josh from Ohio,” Dr. Mark continued, “Tomorrow he will probably leave the ICU with no residual organ dysfunction, no volume overload, (and) no ICU complications.”
Eddy Gutierrez, MD, of Jacksonville, Fla., noted in a question-and-answer period that he has had “positive results” with a similar approach.
“When we first learned about the vitamin C and the ‘Marik protocol,’ so to speak, I was in fellowship and I got laughed at,” Dr. Gutierrez said. “Nobody would let me try it.”
Others are taking a wait-and-see approach.
Greg S. Martin, MD, secretary of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, said in an interview that there are “at least two schools of thought” among critical care specialists regarding the use of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine for treatment of sepsis and septic shock.
“One school of thought is that this is incredibly important if this is even fractionally as effective as what [Dr. Marik] showed, because we have not found an effective therapy for sepsis,” said Dr. Martin, associate professor of medicine at Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta.
“The contrarian approach is to say, ‘yes, but this seems remarkably unlikely to be as effective as what he has shown,’ ” Dr. Martin added. “Particularly in sepsis, people are very skeptical of whether a drug or a drug combination is going to be as effective when you really get down to a high-quality randomized controlled trial that would be the definitive level of evidence.”
The wait may not be long for at least some data. Multiple clinical trials are recruiting or planned, according to Dr. Marik. These included a 140-patient U.S. randomized, double-blind trial of vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine vs. placebo that started in February 2018 and is expected to be completed by February 2019, according to the study’s ClinicalTrials.gov listing.
“The good news is some people think this is of value,” Dr. Marik said.
As part of his presentation, Dr. Marik reported a disclosure related to Baxter (advisory board).
REPORTING FROM CCC47
Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency guidelines explained
SAN ANTONIO – When corticosteroids are used for septic shock, the dose should be low to moderate, the timing should be early, and the duration should be at least 3 days, said a speaker at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society for Critical Care.
Dosing, timing, and duration are “three critical questions” critical care specialists face that are answered by the new critical illness–related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) guidelines, continued Stephen M. Pastores, MD, a cochair of the task force that developed guidelines for the diagnosis and management of CIRCI in critically ill patients.
During his presentation, Dr. Pastores limited his remarks to discussion of sepsis and septic shock with corticosteroids. He cautioned that, despite careful deliberations by the panel, the level of evidence behind some of the recommendations was “low to moderate and never high” and that not all task force members agreed with all recommendations.
“There were a lot of back and forth disagreements behind these recommendations,” said Dr. Pastores, who is the director of the critical care medicine fellowship training and research programs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “We only required 80% of the panelists to agree that these were the recommendations and statements that we were going to go by.”
The guidelines recommend against the use of corticosteroids in adult patients who have sepsis without shock, Dr. Pastores noted.
In contrast,
In an analysis of available data from randomized clinical trials including patients with septic shock, corticosteroids significantly reduced 28-day mortality when compared with placebo, Dr. Pastores said.
That survival benefit seems to be dependent on several factors: dose of the corticosteroids (hydrocortisone less than 400 mg/day), longer duration (at least 3 or more days), and severity of sepsis. “The more severe the sepsis, the more septic shock the patient was in, the more likely the corticosteroids were likely to help those patients,” Dr. Pastores explained.
Accordingly, the guidelines further suggest using long-course, low-dose corticosteroid treatment, namely intravenous hydrocortisone at no more than 400 mg/day for at least 3 days.
The expert panel specifically recommended hydrocortisone as the corticosteroid of choice in this setting, according to Dr. Pastores. That recommendation was based in part on a recent systematic review and meta-analysis showing that hydrocortisone, given as a bolus or an infusion, was more likely than placebo or methylprednisolone to result in shock reversal.
Dr. Pastores reported disclosures related to Theravance Biopharma, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Spectral Diagnostics, and Asahi-Kasei.
SAN ANTONIO – When corticosteroids are used for septic shock, the dose should be low to moderate, the timing should be early, and the duration should be at least 3 days, said a speaker at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society for Critical Care.
Dosing, timing, and duration are “three critical questions” critical care specialists face that are answered by the new critical illness–related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) guidelines, continued Stephen M. Pastores, MD, a cochair of the task force that developed guidelines for the diagnosis and management of CIRCI in critically ill patients.
During his presentation, Dr. Pastores limited his remarks to discussion of sepsis and septic shock with corticosteroids. He cautioned that, despite careful deliberations by the panel, the level of evidence behind some of the recommendations was “low to moderate and never high” and that not all task force members agreed with all recommendations.
“There were a lot of back and forth disagreements behind these recommendations,” said Dr. Pastores, who is the director of the critical care medicine fellowship training and research programs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “We only required 80% of the panelists to agree that these were the recommendations and statements that we were going to go by.”
The guidelines recommend against the use of corticosteroids in adult patients who have sepsis without shock, Dr. Pastores noted.
In contrast,
In an analysis of available data from randomized clinical trials including patients with septic shock, corticosteroids significantly reduced 28-day mortality when compared with placebo, Dr. Pastores said.
That survival benefit seems to be dependent on several factors: dose of the corticosteroids (hydrocortisone less than 400 mg/day), longer duration (at least 3 or more days), and severity of sepsis. “The more severe the sepsis, the more septic shock the patient was in, the more likely the corticosteroids were likely to help those patients,” Dr. Pastores explained.
Accordingly, the guidelines further suggest using long-course, low-dose corticosteroid treatment, namely intravenous hydrocortisone at no more than 400 mg/day for at least 3 days.
The expert panel specifically recommended hydrocortisone as the corticosteroid of choice in this setting, according to Dr. Pastores. That recommendation was based in part on a recent systematic review and meta-analysis showing that hydrocortisone, given as a bolus or an infusion, was more likely than placebo or methylprednisolone to result in shock reversal.
Dr. Pastores reported disclosures related to Theravance Biopharma, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Spectral Diagnostics, and Asahi-Kasei.
SAN ANTONIO – When corticosteroids are used for septic shock, the dose should be low to moderate, the timing should be early, and the duration should be at least 3 days, said a speaker at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society for Critical Care.
Dosing, timing, and duration are “three critical questions” critical care specialists face that are answered by the new critical illness–related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) guidelines, continued Stephen M. Pastores, MD, a cochair of the task force that developed guidelines for the diagnosis and management of CIRCI in critically ill patients.
During his presentation, Dr. Pastores limited his remarks to discussion of sepsis and septic shock with corticosteroids. He cautioned that, despite careful deliberations by the panel, the level of evidence behind some of the recommendations was “low to moderate and never high” and that not all task force members agreed with all recommendations.
“There were a lot of back and forth disagreements behind these recommendations,” said Dr. Pastores, who is the director of the critical care medicine fellowship training and research programs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “We only required 80% of the panelists to agree that these were the recommendations and statements that we were going to go by.”
The guidelines recommend against the use of corticosteroids in adult patients who have sepsis without shock, Dr. Pastores noted.
In contrast,
In an analysis of available data from randomized clinical trials including patients with septic shock, corticosteroids significantly reduced 28-day mortality when compared with placebo, Dr. Pastores said.
That survival benefit seems to be dependent on several factors: dose of the corticosteroids (hydrocortisone less than 400 mg/day), longer duration (at least 3 or more days), and severity of sepsis. “The more severe the sepsis, the more septic shock the patient was in, the more likely the corticosteroids were likely to help those patients,” Dr. Pastores explained.
Accordingly, the guidelines further suggest using long-course, low-dose corticosteroid treatment, namely intravenous hydrocortisone at no more than 400 mg/day for at least 3 days.
The expert panel specifically recommended hydrocortisone as the corticosteroid of choice in this setting, according to Dr. Pastores. That recommendation was based in part on a recent systematic review and meta-analysis showing that hydrocortisone, given as a bolus or an infusion, was more likely than placebo or methylprednisolone to result in shock reversal.
Dr. Pastores reported disclosures related to Theravance Biopharma, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Spectral Diagnostics, and Asahi-Kasei.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE CCC47
Prehospital antibiotics improved some aspects of sepsis care
SAN ANTONIO – according to results of a randomized trial.
Emergency medical service (EMS) personnel were able to recognize sepsis more quickly, obtain blood cultures, and give antibiotics after the training, reported investigator Prabath Nanayakkara, MD, PhD, FRCP, at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Critical Care Congress.
At 28 days, 120 patients (8%) in the prehospital antibiotics group had died, compared with 93 patients (8%) in the usual care group (relative risk, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.24), according to the study’s results that were simultaneously published online in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
The intervention group received antibiotics a median of 26 minutes prior to emergency department (ED) arrival. In the usual care group, median time to antibiotics after ED arrival was 70 minutes, versus 93 minutes prior to the sepsis recognition training (P = .142), the report further says.
“We do not advise prehospital antibiotics at the moment for patients with suspected sepsis,” Dr. Nanayakkara said, during his presentation at the conference.
Other countries might see different results, he cautioned.
In the Netherlands, ambulances reach the emergency scene within 15 minutes 93% of the time, and the average time from dispatch call to ED arrival is 40 minutes, Dr. Nanayakkara noted in the report.
“In part, due to the relatively short response times in the Netherlands, we don’t know if there are other countries with longer response times that would have other results, and whether they should use antibiotics in their ambulances,” Dr. Nanayakkara said in his presentation.
The study was the first-ever prospective randomized, controlled open-label trial to compare early prehospital antibiotics with standard care.
Before the study was started, EMS personnel at 10 large regional ambulance services serving 34 secondary or tertiary hospitals were trained in recognizing sepsis, the report says.
A total of 2,672 patients with suspected sepsis were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, of whom 1,535 were randomized to receive prehospital antibiotics and 1,137 to usual EMS care, which consisted of fluid resuscitation and supplementary oxygen.
The primary end point of the study was all-cause mortality at 28 days.
The negative mortality results of this trial are “not surprising,” given that the trial’s inclusion criteria allowed individuals with suspected infection but without organ dysfunction, said Jean-Louis Vincent, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Hospital, Brussels, in a related editorial appearing in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine (2018 Jan. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[17]30446-0).
Recent consensus definitions of sepsis recognize that sepsis is the association of an infection with some degree of organ dysfunction, according to Dr. Vincent.
“After this initial experience, I believe that a randomized, controlled trial could be done to assess the potential benefit of early antibiotic administration in the ambulance for patients with organ dysfunction associated with infection,” Dr. Vincent wrote in his editorial.
Dr. Nanayakkara and his coauthors declared no competing interests related to their study.
SOURCE: Alam N et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jan;6(1):40-50.
SAN ANTONIO – according to results of a randomized trial.
Emergency medical service (EMS) personnel were able to recognize sepsis more quickly, obtain blood cultures, and give antibiotics after the training, reported investigator Prabath Nanayakkara, MD, PhD, FRCP, at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Critical Care Congress.
At 28 days, 120 patients (8%) in the prehospital antibiotics group had died, compared with 93 patients (8%) in the usual care group (relative risk, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.24), according to the study’s results that were simultaneously published online in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
The intervention group received antibiotics a median of 26 minutes prior to emergency department (ED) arrival. In the usual care group, median time to antibiotics after ED arrival was 70 minutes, versus 93 minutes prior to the sepsis recognition training (P = .142), the report further says.
“We do not advise prehospital antibiotics at the moment for patients with suspected sepsis,” Dr. Nanayakkara said, during his presentation at the conference.
Other countries might see different results, he cautioned.
In the Netherlands, ambulances reach the emergency scene within 15 minutes 93% of the time, and the average time from dispatch call to ED arrival is 40 minutes, Dr. Nanayakkara noted in the report.
“In part, due to the relatively short response times in the Netherlands, we don’t know if there are other countries with longer response times that would have other results, and whether they should use antibiotics in their ambulances,” Dr. Nanayakkara said in his presentation.
The study was the first-ever prospective randomized, controlled open-label trial to compare early prehospital antibiotics with standard care.
Before the study was started, EMS personnel at 10 large regional ambulance services serving 34 secondary or tertiary hospitals were trained in recognizing sepsis, the report says.
A total of 2,672 patients with suspected sepsis were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, of whom 1,535 were randomized to receive prehospital antibiotics and 1,137 to usual EMS care, which consisted of fluid resuscitation and supplementary oxygen.
The primary end point of the study was all-cause mortality at 28 days.
The negative mortality results of this trial are “not surprising,” given that the trial’s inclusion criteria allowed individuals with suspected infection but without organ dysfunction, said Jean-Louis Vincent, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Hospital, Brussels, in a related editorial appearing in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine (2018 Jan. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[17]30446-0).
Recent consensus definitions of sepsis recognize that sepsis is the association of an infection with some degree of organ dysfunction, according to Dr. Vincent.
“After this initial experience, I believe that a randomized, controlled trial could be done to assess the potential benefit of early antibiotic administration in the ambulance for patients with organ dysfunction associated with infection,” Dr. Vincent wrote in his editorial.
Dr. Nanayakkara and his coauthors declared no competing interests related to their study.
SOURCE: Alam N et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jan;6(1):40-50.
SAN ANTONIO – according to results of a randomized trial.
Emergency medical service (EMS) personnel were able to recognize sepsis more quickly, obtain blood cultures, and give antibiotics after the training, reported investigator Prabath Nanayakkara, MD, PhD, FRCP, at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Critical Care Congress.
At 28 days, 120 patients (8%) in the prehospital antibiotics group had died, compared with 93 patients (8%) in the usual care group (relative risk, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.24), according to the study’s results that were simultaneously published online in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
The intervention group received antibiotics a median of 26 minutes prior to emergency department (ED) arrival. In the usual care group, median time to antibiotics after ED arrival was 70 minutes, versus 93 minutes prior to the sepsis recognition training (P = .142), the report further says.
“We do not advise prehospital antibiotics at the moment for patients with suspected sepsis,” Dr. Nanayakkara said, during his presentation at the conference.
Other countries might see different results, he cautioned.
In the Netherlands, ambulances reach the emergency scene within 15 minutes 93% of the time, and the average time from dispatch call to ED arrival is 40 minutes, Dr. Nanayakkara noted in the report.
“In part, due to the relatively short response times in the Netherlands, we don’t know if there are other countries with longer response times that would have other results, and whether they should use antibiotics in their ambulances,” Dr. Nanayakkara said in his presentation.
The study was the first-ever prospective randomized, controlled open-label trial to compare early prehospital antibiotics with standard care.
Before the study was started, EMS personnel at 10 large regional ambulance services serving 34 secondary or tertiary hospitals were trained in recognizing sepsis, the report says.
A total of 2,672 patients with suspected sepsis were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, of whom 1,535 were randomized to receive prehospital antibiotics and 1,137 to usual EMS care, which consisted of fluid resuscitation and supplementary oxygen.
The primary end point of the study was all-cause mortality at 28 days.
The negative mortality results of this trial are “not surprising,” given that the trial’s inclusion criteria allowed individuals with suspected infection but without organ dysfunction, said Jean-Louis Vincent, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Hospital, Brussels, in a related editorial appearing in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine (2018 Jan. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[17]30446-0).
Recent consensus definitions of sepsis recognize that sepsis is the association of an infection with some degree of organ dysfunction, according to Dr. Vincent.
“After this initial experience, I believe that a randomized, controlled trial could be done to assess the potential benefit of early antibiotic administration in the ambulance for patients with organ dysfunction associated with infection,” Dr. Vincent wrote in his editorial.
Dr. Nanayakkara and his coauthors declared no competing interests related to their study.
SOURCE: Alam N et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jan;6(1):40-50.
REPORTING FROM CCC47
Key clinical point: In patients with suspected sepsis, prehospital antibiotics delivered by EMS personnel improved some aspects of care, but did not reduce mortality.
Major finding: At 28 days, 120 patients (8%) in the prehospital antibiotics group had died, compared with 93 patients (8%) in the usual care group (relative risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.24).
Data source: Intention-to-treat analysis of 2,672 patients in a prospective randomized, controlled open-label trial comparing early prehospital antibiotics to standard care.
Disclosures: The study authors declared no competing interests related to the study.
Source: Alam N et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jan;6(1):40-50.
Hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone cuts deaths in septic shock
Hydrocortisone in combination with fludrocortisone significantly reduced 90-day mortality in septic shock patients in a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.
Prior to this study, two large trials had displayed that corticosteroids were beneficial in improving hemodynamic status and organ function, but little was known about corticosteroids’ ability to increase survival in sepsis patients.
The study, named the Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock (APROCCHSS) trial, was designed to assess the benefit/risk ratio of using activated protein C – drotrecogin alfa (activated) – and corticosteroids together or separately in septic shock patients. The original design of the study included Xigris (drotrecogin alfa) and was composed of four parallel groups, but Xigris was removed from the market in October of 2011, so the study continued with only two parallel groups.
A total of 1,241 patients experiencing chronic septic shock were recruited into the two double-blind, parallel groups, with patients in one group receiving hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and the other receiving placebos. The placebos used in this study were similar in appearance to the actual treatment drugs. The placebos for hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone were either parenteral mannitol (133.6 mg), disodium phosphate (8.73 mg), and sodium phosphate (0.92 mg) or tablets of microcrystalline cellulose (59.098 mg), respectively.
Hydrocortisone was given intravenously every 6 hours as a 50-mg intravenous bolus, and fludrocortisone was given once a day as a 50-mcg tablet through a nasogastric tube. Patients in ICUs who had septic shock for less than 24 hours were included in the study. Septic shock was identified by the presence of a clinically or microbiologically documented infection, a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 3 or 4 for at least two organs and for at least 6 hours, and receipt of vasopressor therapy for at least 6 hours.
After 90 days, 264 of 614 of the patients (43%) in the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group and almost half (49.1%) of 627 patients in the placebo group had died (P = .03). The relative risk of death was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99), which favored the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group. The researchers also observed that death was significantly lower in the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group, compared with the placebo group, at time of ICU discharge (35.4% vs. 41.0%, respectively; P = .04).
While mortality was reduced, patients still experienced adverse events. 326 of 614 (53.1%) patients in the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group and 363 of 626 patients (58.0%) in the placebo group experienced at least one serious adverse event by day 180 (P = 0.08).
“Seven-day treatment with a 50-mg intravenous bolus of hydrocortisone every 6 hours and a daily dose of 50 mcg of oral fludrocortisone resulted in lower mortality at day 90 and at ICU and hospital discharge than placebo among adults with septic shock,” concluded Dr. Annane and his coauthors.
The majority of researchers had no relevant financial disclosures to report, while some doctors received grants and personal fees unrelated to this study. This study was funded in part by public grants from the French Ministry of Health.
SOURCE: Annana A et al. NEJM. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705716.
The results of the Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock (APROCCHSS) trial and the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL), both reported in the latest issue of NEJM, are landmark studies detailing the largest analyses of hydrocortisone use in patients with septic shock.
Both of these trials were massive, with over 5,000 patients combined, which is much larger than all previous studies according to Anthony Suffredini, MD, of the National Institutes of Health. An additional useful feature of these trials was that they had clear criteria for entry into the study. These criteria included: “vasopressor-dependent shock and respiratory failure leading to the use of mechanical ventilation, details of antimicrobial therapy, assessment of survival at 90 days, and well-defined secondary outcomes and analyses of adverse events.”
The ADRENAL and APROCCHSS had vastly different 90-day mortality rates: ADRENAL had mortality rates of 27.9% with hydrocortisone and 28.8% with placebo (P = .50), while APROACCHSS had mortality rates of 43.0% with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and 49.1% with placebo (P = .03). Despite this, they both display the beneficial effect anti-inflammatory therapies, such as hydrocortisone, have on secondary outcomes of shock reversal and the reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation. “It is unlikely that in the near future sufficiently powered trials will provide us with better data” than the ADRENAL and APROCCHSS trials, Dr. Suffredini wrote.
Dr. Suffredini made these comments in an editorial accompanying this study in the New England Journal of Medicine. He is the deputy chief of the critical care medicine department at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, and he has served on the executive committee of the Department of Veteran Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. He has no other relevant financial disclosures to report.
The results of the Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock (APROCCHSS) trial and the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL), both reported in the latest issue of NEJM, are landmark studies detailing the largest analyses of hydrocortisone use in patients with septic shock.
Both of these trials were massive, with over 5,000 patients combined, which is much larger than all previous studies according to Anthony Suffredini, MD, of the National Institutes of Health. An additional useful feature of these trials was that they had clear criteria for entry into the study. These criteria included: “vasopressor-dependent shock and respiratory failure leading to the use of mechanical ventilation, details of antimicrobial therapy, assessment of survival at 90 days, and well-defined secondary outcomes and analyses of adverse events.”
The ADRENAL and APROCCHSS had vastly different 90-day mortality rates: ADRENAL had mortality rates of 27.9% with hydrocortisone and 28.8% with placebo (P = .50), while APROACCHSS had mortality rates of 43.0% with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and 49.1% with placebo (P = .03). Despite this, they both display the beneficial effect anti-inflammatory therapies, such as hydrocortisone, have on secondary outcomes of shock reversal and the reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation. “It is unlikely that in the near future sufficiently powered trials will provide us with better data” than the ADRENAL and APROCCHSS trials, Dr. Suffredini wrote.
Dr. Suffredini made these comments in an editorial accompanying this study in the New England Journal of Medicine. He is the deputy chief of the critical care medicine department at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, and he has served on the executive committee of the Department of Veteran Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. He has no other relevant financial disclosures to report.
The results of the Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock (APROCCHSS) trial and the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL), both reported in the latest issue of NEJM, are landmark studies detailing the largest analyses of hydrocortisone use in patients with septic shock.
Both of these trials were massive, with over 5,000 patients combined, which is much larger than all previous studies according to Anthony Suffredini, MD, of the National Institutes of Health. An additional useful feature of these trials was that they had clear criteria for entry into the study. These criteria included: “vasopressor-dependent shock and respiratory failure leading to the use of mechanical ventilation, details of antimicrobial therapy, assessment of survival at 90 days, and well-defined secondary outcomes and analyses of adverse events.”
The ADRENAL and APROCCHSS had vastly different 90-day mortality rates: ADRENAL had mortality rates of 27.9% with hydrocortisone and 28.8% with placebo (P = .50), while APROACCHSS had mortality rates of 43.0% with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and 49.1% with placebo (P = .03). Despite this, they both display the beneficial effect anti-inflammatory therapies, such as hydrocortisone, have on secondary outcomes of shock reversal and the reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation. “It is unlikely that in the near future sufficiently powered trials will provide us with better data” than the ADRENAL and APROCCHSS trials, Dr. Suffredini wrote.
Dr. Suffredini made these comments in an editorial accompanying this study in the New England Journal of Medicine. He is the deputy chief of the critical care medicine department at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, and he has served on the executive committee of the Department of Veteran Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. He has no other relevant financial disclosures to report.
Hydrocortisone in combination with fludrocortisone significantly reduced 90-day mortality in septic shock patients in a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.
Prior to this study, two large trials had displayed that corticosteroids were beneficial in improving hemodynamic status and organ function, but little was known about corticosteroids’ ability to increase survival in sepsis patients.
The study, named the Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock (APROCCHSS) trial, was designed to assess the benefit/risk ratio of using activated protein C – drotrecogin alfa (activated) – and corticosteroids together or separately in septic shock patients. The original design of the study included Xigris (drotrecogin alfa) and was composed of four parallel groups, but Xigris was removed from the market in October of 2011, so the study continued with only two parallel groups.
A total of 1,241 patients experiencing chronic septic shock were recruited into the two double-blind, parallel groups, with patients in one group receiving hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and the other receiving placebos. The placebos used in this study were similar in appearance to the actual treatment drugs. The placebos for hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone were either parenteral mannitol (133.6 mg), disodium phosphate (8.73 mg), and sodium phosphate (0.92 mg) or tablets of microcrystalline cellulose (59.098 mg), respectively.
Hydrocortisone was given intravenously every 6 hours as a 50-mg intravenous bolus, and fludrocortisone was given once a day as a 50-mcg tablet through a nasogastric tube. Patients in ICUs who had septic shock for less than 24 hours were included in the study. Septic shock was identified by the presence of a clinically or microbiologically documented infection, a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 3 or 4 for at least two organs and for at least 6 hours, and receipt of vasopressor therapy for at least 6 hours.
After 90 days, 264 of 614 of the patients (43%) in the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group and almost half (49.1%) of 627 patients in the placebo group had died (P = .03). The relative risk of death was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99), which favored the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group. The researchers also observed that death was significantly lower in the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group, compared with the placebo group, at time of ICU discharge (35.4% vs. 41.0%, respectively; P = .04).
While mortality was reduced, patients still experienced adverse events. 326 of 614 (53.1%) patients in the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group and 363 of 626 patients (58.0%) in the placebo group experienced at least one serious adverse event by day 180 (P = 0.08).
“Seven-day treatment with a 50-mg intravenous bolus of hydrocortisone every 6 hours and a daily dose of 50 mcg of oral fludrocortisone resulted in lower mortality at day 90 and at ICU and hospital discharge than placebo among adults with septic shock,” concluded Dr. Annane and his coauthors.
The majority of researchers had no relevant financial disclosures to report, while some doctors received grants and personal fees unrelated to this study. This study was funded in part by public grants from the French Ministry of Health.
SOURCE: Annana A et al. NEJM. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705716.
Hydrocortisone in combination with fludrocortisone significantly reduced 90-day mortality in septic shock patients in a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.
Prior to this study, two large trials had displayed that corticosteroids were beneficial in improving hemodynamic status and organ function, but little was known about corticosteroids’ ability to increase survival in sepsis patients.
The study, named the Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock (APROCCHSS) trial, was designed to assess the benefit/risk ratio of using activated protein C – drotrecogin alfa (activated) – and corticosteroids together or separately in septic shock patients. The original design of the study included Xigris (drotrecogin alfa) and was composed of four parallel groups, but Xigris was removed from the market in October of 2011, so the study continued with only two parallel groups.
A total of 1,241 patients experiencing chronic septic shock were recruited into the two double-blind, parallel groups, with patients in one group receiving hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and the other receiving placebos. The placebos used in this study were similar in appearance to the actual treatment drugs. The placebos for hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone were either parenteral mannitol (133.6 mg), disodium phosphate (8.73 mg), and sodium phosphate (0.92 mg) or tablets of microcrystalline cellulose (59.098 mg), respectively.
Hydrocortisone was given intravenously every 6 hours as a 50-mg intravenous bolus, and fludrocortisone was given once a day as a 50-mcg tablet through a nasogastric tube. Patients in ICUs who had septic shock for less than 24 hours were included in the study. Septic shock was identified by the presence of a clinically or microbiologically documented infection, a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 3 or 4 for at least two organs and for at least 6 hours, and receipt of vasopressor therapy for at least 6 hours.
After 90 days, 264 of 614 of the patients (43%) in the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group and almost half (49.1%) of 627 patients in the placebo group had died (P = .03). The relative risk of death was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99), which favored the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group. The researchers also observed that death was significantly lower in the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group, compared with the placebo group, at time of ICU discharge (35.4% vs. 41.0%, respectively; P = .04).
While mortality was reduced, patients still experienced adverse events. 326 of 614 (53.1%) patients in the hydrocortisone/fludrocortisone group and 363 of 626 patients (58.0%) in the placebo group experienced at least one serious adverse event by day 180 (P = 0.08).
“Seven-day treatment with a 50-mg intravenous bolus of hydrocortisone every 6 hours and a daily dose of 50 mcg of oral fludrocortisone resulted in lower mortality at day 90 and at ICU and hospital discharge than placebo among adults with septic shock,” concluded Dr. Annane and his coauthors.
The majority of researchers had no relevant financial disclosures to report, while some doctors received grants and personal fees unrelated to this study. This study was funded in part by public grants from the French Ministry of Health.
SOURCE: Annana A et al. NEJM. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705716.
FROM NEJM
Key clinical point: Hydrocortisone in combination with fludrocortisone significantly reduced 90-day mortality in septic shock patients.
Major finding: Mortality rates were lower in patients treated with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone, compared with patients treated with placebos (43% vs. 49.1%, respectively; P = .03).
Study details: A randomized, double-blind study of 1,241 patients with septic shock.
Disclosures: The majority of researchers had no relevant financial disclosures to report, while some doctors received grants and personal fees unrelated to this study. This study was funded in part by public grants from the French Ministry of Health.
Source: Annane A et al. NEJM. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705716.